Nameless Voice on 14/11/2009 at 20:46
Quote Posted by Zygoptera
If there's an incongruity it's with not considering the T1 equivalent to be similar. I haven't played T1 for ages but there isn't really any reason (?) for C/V not to simply end the whole thing right there and then rather than using the standard supervillain-not-finishing-the-job-and-leaving-it-to-incompetent-underling cliche.
I got something of an impression that he didn't really want to kill Garrett as such, he just didn't need him any more. What real reason did he have for killing him? I doubt he would have considered him to be an actual threat, and he had been a useful pawn. Since he didn't really care if Garrett lived or died, there was no real reason to kill him then and there. Constantine needn't even have cared if Garrett escaped, since he didn't expect him to come after him, or to be able to touch him in the Maw.
Only of of his four samples when for if he sees Garrett during the finale shows any surprise at him still being alive, and "Comes chasing your death Garrett? Better for you stays above!" almost implies that he had expected Garrett to escape and to go into hiding somewhere.
Angel Dust on 14/11/2009 at 22:59
Quote Posted by dethtoll
Then I guess the entire fucking series is contrived, because pretty much the whole point of Half-Life is that you never have the whole story.
Yeah because two soldiers doing something out of character so that the players weapons can be taken away is totally in the same vein of enigmatic storytelling as the mysterious G-man withholding information.
june gloom on 14/11/2009 at 23:43
Oh for crying out loud. How do you know that those two faceless grunts we see for all of 10 seconds (12 if you count Barney spotting them in Blue Shift) are even doing anything out of character? Stop nitpicking. There's a lot of reasons to complain about HL's method of storytelling and that is not one of them.
ZymeAddict on 15/11/2009 at 00:38
Quote Posted by doctorfrog
Deus Ex handled the lose-your-stuff thing pretty well by placing you in an open-ended level, where you could decide where you wanted to go first. In a way, the level didn't give you back your stuff, you had to go looking for it, and only if you wanted to (though you'd be a fool if you didn't). It also gave up a bunch of extra toys for your trouble.
I also thought
Deus Ex handled it better than
Half-Life and the million + games before and since then by the fact that [spoiler]JC Denton getting captured by MJ-12 was actually an integral part of the story. It not only revealed more about the characters and factions in the game and provided a nice little plot-twist (if a rather obvious one), it also introduces one of the main characters for the second half of the game (the computer AI, Daedalus).[/spoiler]
So, in other words, the story itself helped make up for the inconvenience.
Angel Dust on 15/11/2009 at 01:25
Quote Posted by dethtoll
Oh for crying out loud. How do you
know that those two faceless grunts we see for all of 10 seconds (12 if you count Barney spotting them in Blue Shift) are even doing anything out of character? Stop nitpicking. There's a lot of reasons to complain about HL's method of storytelling and that is not one of them.
Do you have any idea how characterisation works? Since they are indeed faceless grunts we judge them based on what we know of the soldiers in general: they are ruthless, efficient and some of them (and based on their convesation, these two certainly fall into this category) are also unscrupulous, vengeful and insubordinate. Therefore it's only reasonable to assume that they would kill you (bullet/knife/whatever) and dump the body. When they don't do that*, the audience questions why and when the only visible reason seems to be to create a gamplay setback, it feels arbitrary and contrived. And stop giving this piece of sloppy plotting a pass under the banner of HL's enigmatic storytelling. It creates no mystery or intrigue, it's just that dumb ol' cliche, as Zygoptera put it, of the bad-guys-not-finishing-the-job.
However I will admit that it's not a gamebreaker in HL1 as the game has a fairly light, serial adventure like tone. My point originally was that the main reason these setbacks don't work, particularly on replay, is because the story justifications are often flimsy and this was an example brought up earlier in the thread that is pretty similar to a lot of situations that games force you into.
*Now obviously when you're playing, you know that they aren't going to actually kill the player but you will be wondering how you are going to get out of this situation.
Pyrian on 15/11/2009 at 01:26
Quote Posted by WingedKagouti
"Better safe than sorry."
...Only applies if they think there's a significant risk he's going to escape.
june gloom on 15/11/2009 at 01:34
Quote Posted by Angel Dust
the only visible reason seems to be to create a gamplay setback
Only if you're incredibly shortsighted. Sure, the game doesn't spoonfeed a reason to you but that doesn't mean there is no valid reason outside of gameplay concerns. But I said that before, so since we're just going round and round I'll just say you're wrong, you say I'm wrong, we call each other faggots and then break for lunch and find something else to argue about. Deal?
Malf on 15/11/2009 at 01:51
Surprised no-one's mentioned Riddick EFBB yet. Every time Starbreeze set you back, they allow you to bounce back bigger and badder, and the narrative turns up a notch too. Excellent stuff, and probably the best example of handling set-backs I can think of.
CCCToad on 15/11/2009 at 01:59
Curse you, now I want to play escape from butcher bay again.
Angel Dust on 15/11/2009 at 02:30
Quote Posted by dethtoll
... so since we're just going round and round I'll just say you're wrong, you say I'm wrong, we call each other faggots and then break for lunch and find something else to argue about. Deal?
Alright faggot, you've got yourself for deal. :thumb:
